How to End Bribery of New York City Building Inspectors

Published: October 16, 1993

To the Editor:

The perennial scandals of payoffs by plumbing contractors and bribes to inspectors and other employees of New York City's Department of Buildings for quicker approvals ("18 Inspectors Arrested on Bribe Charges," Oct. 1) demand a time-tested approach -- rooting out corruption by eliminating the cause.

The plan offered by the Dinkins administration in the form of two bills in the City Council would have a costly negative impact on building owners and the public. The bills would transfer the functions of the Plumbing Division to a new, private, not-for-profit corporation headed by the same officials who have headed the agency for nearly four years.

Plumbing inspectors are paid about $28,000 a year, compared with $55,000 earned by tradesmen whose work they must certify as complying with the complex health and building codes. The inspectors must qualify for the same plumbing license and have extensive hands-on experience. So why have this great disparity in salaries?

As a former administrative engineer in the Office of Management and Budget, I urged raising salaries of inspectors as well as city mechanics, who earn similar pay under Section 220 of the Labor Law, to those of tradesmen in private industry. This policy is followed by San Francisco, Chicago and other major cities. This proposal was repeatedly rejected by budget officials who said: "They get more from payoffs than they do from the city, so why should we add to the budget burden?"

This poses a conundrum. In order to minimize corruption the private corporation would have to pay its inspectors as much as the plumbers whose work they would approve. The new publicly sponsored agency would require a complete bureaucracy of directors, managers, public relations staff, plan examiners, personnel officers and clerks, as well as a staff of investigators. It would have to pay for office space, computers and other facilities that would duplicate existing operations. All these costs would result in skyrocketing fees that would add to the already high building costs in New York City.

So before creating another quasi-city agency, wouldn't it be prudent to raise salaries as a deterrent to bribes and payoffs? Inspectors could then look forward to honest careers without expecting "dirty" money to meet their family needs. A major portion of the salary increases would come from existing surplus agency revenue (compared with expenditures), and the balance from a small increase in filing and inspection fees.

I have learned that it is better to improve an organization with adequate funding and proper management than to create a more costly patronage mill. ALFRED ENGEL Bronx, Oct. 5, 1993